ABC apologises to Andrew Bolt

The ABC has apologised to commentator Andrew Bolt for comments made about him by indigenous academic Marcia Langton on Q&A.

Even on a good night, watching the ABC's Q&A can
do your head in: the scripted questions, the inane set-piece responses
from politicians, the suffocating level of political debate and ideas.

So it required extra doses of fortifying Prozac to sit
through the whole show to get to an apology to Melbourne's professional
provocateur, Andrew Bolt.


It was by no means crystal clear that Professor Marcia
Langton called Andrew Bolt a racist on the program the week before. She
did call him a fool, but he doesn't seem upset by that.



Langton said he had racially abused another fair-skinned
Aborigine, Misty Jenkins. Later she ''apologised for causing offence''
to Bolt.

In fact, her ''apology'' was contained in an 18-page document
in which she said: ''I should apologise to him because I 'hurt his
feelings' and offended him. I did not apologise for my belief or my
intention of trying to explain my beliefs … I believe his obsessive
writing about the colour of the skin of particular Aboriginal people is
malicious and cowardly.''



Some apology. Showing a serious degree of sensitivity, Bolt then demanded an apology from the public broadcaster, which Q&A host Tony Jones duly delivered on Monday.



According to Media Watch, this was even before Bolt
flagged defamation proceedings. Maybe Aunty's lawyers wanted to avoid
another round of bullying from the government and News Corp.



Already it has the prime minister's dinner guest and Murdoch
pen-man Chris Kenny on its schedule of defamation cases, with Tony
Abbott saying the ABC should not be ''defending the indefensible''.



''Next time the ABC comes to the government looking for more
money, this is the kind of thing we would want to ask them questions
about,'' he said.



If ever there was a blatant contempt of court, this is it -
threatening a litigant with a monetary penalty if it defends itself in
civil litigation. George Brandis must have forgotten the Wran case in
which the former premier was found guilty of contempt for encouraging
the second jury in the Lionel Murphy case to find the High Court judge
not guilty.



It would not be surprising if the ABC applied for a judge-alone trial or a jury of 12 in the Kenny case.



But back to fair-skinned Bolt. He is unhappy with Jones'
apology on behalf of the ABC. He wants it to extend to things for which
Langton hadn't apologised. It's all too precious for words.



For journalists to be demanding apologies and suing for
defamation is undignified and embarrassing. The licence to dish it out
has the associated responsibility of being able to take it.



Journalists have ink by the barrel to unload on their
attackers, yet here we are with a chorus from News Corp demanding
apologies from the ABC because its sulphuric columnists and opinion
pedlars sometimes get offended, insulted or humiliated.



If it's good enough for racial minorities to cop a bit of
abuse in the media, there should be a rule under the journalists' code
of ethics that reptiles, who can defend themselves in print, the
internet or on air, should not sue for defamation or insist that people
apologise to them. News Corp wants to be rid of the offend, insult and
humiliate provisions in the Racial Discrimination Act - at the very
least. They haven't extended their campaign to amending or repealing the
Defamation Act and monetary awards for damage to reputation and hurt to
feelings.



It's all right to offend racial or ethnic minorities but,
happily, the Defamation Act is still there as a back-up for miffed
journalists.



On Tuesday The Australian floated the likely
amendments to the act. ''Offend, insult and humiliate have to go,''
declared columnist Nick Cater. ''Intimidate'' or something similar is
likely to stay. Then he turned to amendments to the exemptions
provisions of the act, s.18D. It currently says that what otherwise
might be offensive, insulting, etc under 18C is defensible if it is said
or done ''reasonably and in good faith''. Cater said the ''good
faith'' test ''must be removed''.



Oh dear, you've picked the wrong one, Nick. If journalists
want a defence or exemption with a better chance of protecting them,
''good faith'' is infinitely preferable to ''reasonableness''.



Richard Ackland is a journalist, a lawyer and a former presenter of the ABC's Media Watch.



Twitter @JustinianNews